Assessment of lymphograms in patients with Stage I or II Hodgkin's Disease and determination of accuracy of radiological interpretation (based on laparotomy and/or autopsy findings); the incidence of new disease as noted on follow-up studies; the value of second and third look lymphography have been the goals of our project. As of August 13, 1974, 541 patients have been enrolled and lymphograms have been read by both local radiologists and the radiologist of record for 502. Agreement in the interpretation occurred in 470 cases, of whom 440 were read as negative and 30 as positive. This agreement in interpretation was noted in 32 cases and 13 were excluded because of disagreement. Another two were excluded for unrelated reasons. Follow-up studies have been read for 337 patients in total. In 304 patients there has been agreement between radiologists on all follow-up films submitted. The remaining 33 patients include 19 for whom the radiologist of record (Manuel Viamonte, Jr., M.D.)gave a negative reading, 12 for whom he reported positive, and two for whom disagreements of both types were recorded in the several follow-up reports of the same patient. Ten positive reports (representing 9 different patients) were confirmed. Four of these were read as positive by the local radiologist and 6 by the radiologist of record. Positive disease was confirmed in 5 of the 9 patients by subsequent x-ray films, in 2 by autopsy, and in 1 by laparotomy and autopsy and 1 by x-ray and autopsy. Sixteen studies were classified as false positive, 10 following positive interpretation by the local radiologist, and 6 following positive readings by the radiologist of record. The remaining 9 positive reports can neither be confirmed nor rejected by available follow-up information. The local radiologist has reported more positive cases in total than has the radiologist of record (21 local and 14 record). The additional cases of the local radiologist are all false positive and indeterminate cases. There are more confirmed cases among those interpreted positive by the radiologist of record. Thus the radiologist of record's readings are both more sensitive and more specific than those of the local radiologist, although the difference is slight and consistent with change variation with a small number of discordances reported. The incidence of new disease as noted on follow-up studies has been (Text Truncated - Exceeds Capacity)